The Government’s response to February’s Justice Committee
report on Children and Young People in Custody seems to raise fresh doubts that
the first secure school will open in September next year. Before Oasis Charitable Trust can start their self styled "revolution of love", the site at Medway – formerly a
Secure Training Centre (STC) and subsequently used to hold adult prisoners
during the height of the pandemic -needs extensive refurbishment to upgrade its
facilities to “provide a homely child centred environment that meets children’s
home regulations”. Subject to securing necessary approvals, the government intend
to commence renovations only at the end of this year.
The MoJ say they “continue to work towards an opening date at
the end of 2022 and will keep the Committee updated on progress” but I would
not bet against slippage to 2023. That could make it seven years since Charlie
Taylor first recommended Secure Schools in his 2016 Youth Justice Review. The government
says, “in such a complex regulatory and operating environment, it is important
to take the time to get it right”. They are certainly doing that.
As for the long- term ambition to replace all Young Offender
Institutions (YOIs) and STCs with secure schools, the admission that this “will take some
time to be realized” is a serious understatement. There is no guaranteed funding
for schools beyond so-called Oasis Restore at Medway. The MoJ “will keep the
Committee updated when we are able to say more about the timetable for further
steps towards our vision”. MPs won't be holding their breath.
Interestingly, the MoJ say they continue to work closely with
the Secure Children Home sector “in anticipation of the next round of
commissioning, and we are committed to making the most of our SCH provision”. After
years of reductions in the number of SCH beds, could this signal a revival of
their role in youth justice?
For the short and medium term, the Government response lists a
range of potentially useful initiatives underway to improve the operation of the current estate; by
raising the skills of staff, improving mental health provision, reducing use of
force and self-harm; and developing better resettlement plans. Pain inducing techniques
were supposed to be removed from the syllabus of approved restraint at the end of last year, but this is now planned “by the summer.” As for segregation, a
policy framework is due to be published by August with immediate implementation,
although data on its use will be published only from the next financial year. A further update on David Lammy’s
recommendations on reducing racial disparity will be published “in due
course”.
The response also says that the Youth Custody Service has
strengthened its partnership with the NHS to identify the small number of
children who present a complex mix of characteristics and “whose needs are more
suitably met outside of youth custody.” In truth, this is not a small number,
given the limited ability of YOIs and STCs to provide a safe and therapeutic
environment.
In a separate inquiry the Justice Committee last month
lambasted the failure by private company MTC to deliver even basic standards of
care to vulnerable children at Rainsbrook STC. It is not entirely reassuring to find out from the Committee that when giving evidence to them, the Executive
Director of the Youth Custody Service (YCS) who is responsible for the secure estate, failed to declare that
she used to work for MTC in a senior position. The Committee were concerned in their report that early in
2020, the MoJ granted the maximum possible two-year extension to the contract
with MTC, taking the end date to May 2023. It is not clear what role the Executive
Director of the YCS played in that decision, but it is to be hoped that if necessary, relevant
interests were declared.
